August 24, 2008

We were watching a brief clip yesterday, but here's the longer version, courtesy of Hot Air. Watch the whole thing. A man named Frank asks a question about law school credentials that sets Biden off. Biden spews a list of claimed achievements — some of which turn out to be false — and — this is I want to focus on — concludes with a windy oration about how what this country needs is a Democrat with great powers of oration.

I'm picturing the young Barack Obama, watching this on C-SPAN and a light bulb goes on over his head:

Here's the text of that last part:

It seems to me if you can speak, you're at a liability in the Democratic Party anymore. It seems to me you've all become heartless technocrats. It seems to me that you forget that what happens is we've never as a party, we have never as a party moved this nation by 14-point position papers and 9-point programs.

It seems that when we got involved in the civil rights movement, Frank, nobody asked Martin Luther King what his legislative agenda was. He marched to change attitudes. When the women's movement started, it had not moved with a constitutional amendment. They marched to change attitudes.

And this party better understand full well that it's about time that we change our attitude and we begin to change the attitudes of Americans about what their responsibilities are to the poor, about what their responsibilities are to other people, and about what our responsibility in the world is, and that requires changing attitudes.

But Frank, I promise you'll see my 15-point plans and 19-point position papers and you'll be able to make a judgment when Gary Hart and I stand there — who knows more about foreign policy, Gary or me? — and when you see that Dick Gephardt and I stand there, you'll be able to make a judges about whether Dick Gephardt or I know more about economic policy.

But ultimately, Frank, this country needs a leader, and leaders change attitudes about people, and it's the ironic twist that in the wake of Ronald Reagan that the only one thing he knew how to do was the one thing that is now being... the currency of which is in fact now being devalued so much.

Maybe this was the moment when Barack Obama first envisioned his path to the presidency, first saw how he might be the one who could, like Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King, use the power of speech to change attitudes.

That C-SPAN clip was recorded on April 3, 1987, and in September of 1987, there was some conspicuous apologizing for the factual misstatements he made. The chronology works: Obama entered law school one year later, in the fall of 1988.

Here was Biden, prescribing what the party needed but crumpling when challenged about his law school — the solid but not prestigious Syracuse University College of Law. Obama then went to Harvard, a law school no one can dare disrespect, where he would pick up the credentials that would hush the Franks of this world.

In the fall of 1988, Obama saw the Democratic Party lose with a man who looked for all the world like the heartless technocrat Biden had warned us about:

Did Biden inspire Obama back in in 1987-88? Maybe Biden knew he did, and he was thinking about that — thinking about himself — when he enthused awkwardly about "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

Now, Obama enfolds him, and everything comes full circle. The planets align. What was once so wrong is now all right.

ADDED: A commenter doubts that Obama would have seen this video back in 1987. Did people sit around watching C-SPAN back then? I remember the phenomenon of the "C-SPAN junkie" from the 80s. Don't you think Obama is the kind of person who'd have watched "The Road to the White House," that endless feed of presidential campaign events, which was already on in those days? Here's a NYT article by Andrew Rosenthal from October 1987:

C-SPAN's Spotlight Brings Quiet Corners of Campaigning Into View

Bruce Babbitt subscribed to it to help him learn how to look better on television. Tom Rath, adviser to Senator Bob Dole in New Hampshire, uses it to observe campaign rivals with a degree of intimacy unheard of in previous elections. And it played an important role in the disintegration of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s campaign.

The Washington-based Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network, once known primarily as ''the network that dares to be boring,'' has found new prominence and respect in the 1988 Presidential election season.

C-SPAN still is not considered so influential on the course of the campaign as newspapers and the major networks. But some political operatives believe its blanket coverage has started to change the rules of campaigning, bringing television into areas once shielded from general view and exposing candidates to minute analysis by their opponents and the press....

The power of C-SPAN was dramatically illustrated last month toward the end of Mr. Biden's campaign. Nan Gibson, C-SPAN's press coordinator, says that after publication of newspaper articles about a speech in which the Senator had lifted the family history of a British politician, she received scores of calls from reporters interested in the network's tape of Mr. Biden's remarks.

The major networks' news programs televised the C-SPAN tape in their coverage of the story, and another C-SPAN tape contributed to a subsequent Newsweek article that told of how Mr. Biden, at a New Hampshire campaign event, had misstated his academic record.

''Reporters are using us as a video archive,'' Ms. Gibson said. ''They can't be everywhere at once, so they can watch from here.''...

The network ... has greatly expanded its campaign reporting, mostly through a weekly program, ''Road to the White House,'' on which C-SPAN's political editor, Carl M. Rutan, is host....

''C-SPAN brings everything that the candidates are doing into the people's living rooms,'' said Phil Roeder, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party. ''It's the high-tech version of retail politics,'' the style of one-on-one personalized campaigning deemed mandatory for success in Iowa and New Hampshire.....

At small campaign events, C-SPAN crews attach a wireless microphone to the candidate's clothing and use a shotgun microphone to reach everyone else. The object, Mr. Rutan said, is to record every word the candidate says and every gesture he makes as he shakes hands, kisses babies and drinks coffee....

But the presence of C-SPAN cameras, political operatives said, also forces candidates to be more careful about such things as efforts to tailor their remarks for different parts of the country. Mr. Rutan, C-SPAN's political editor, said that after Mr. Biden's experience, campaign aides were more wary.

''In the past, candidates have been able to go where they want and maybe stretch the truth just a little bit,'' he said. ''Suddenly what they say in a small Iowa town is on the record, just as if they had said it at the National Press Club in Washington.''

In 1987, C-SPAN was teaching some crucial lessons about the future of political campaigning, lessons taught at Joe Biden's expense, and I'll bet Obama was watching, learning, and — for Joe Biden — empathizing.

The question from Frank, who apparently was a reporter, came off to me like a snide question, and was properly responded to by someone else in the crowd with "who cares?". I suspect Biden saw it for the implicit insult it was (perhaps because others had made such questions in the past as insults?), and responded. His "much higher IQ" response was a little ham-handed, but well within the bounds of a little back-and-forth in a political context.

The rest of his speech is quite good, actually, and on the money. The linkage of liberalism to 14-point plans and to-do lists for the government (a linkage encouraged by liberal journalists and pundits of that era) did nothing to improve the fortunes of liberalism and the Democratic Party, and produced "leaders" like Mondale and Dukakis. Biden was right, leadership involves engaging people emotionally as well as intellectually, and you change attitudes by changing how people viscerally respond to issues as well as how they think about them. Good for him for seeing that two decades ago, in the midst of the Mondale-Dukakis era.

I doubt Obama saw this video back in the eighties, because I don't think this was a very famous video. But there would be an irony if he did watch it and it inspired him to go on the path he's gone on, and that path ended up including Biden as his sidekick.

I had forgotten just how stark Biden's lies were in response to that question. And not only is he an egregious liar, but the subject matter of his lies makes him look like an idiot (which he's not, but his law school record is awful). McCain won't make hay out of this because of his relationship with Biden and his own class rank (at a significantly more distinguished institution). But a 527 ad consisting of nothing more than Biden's speech juxtaposed with the actual facts will make him look like a real blowhard, especially if it closes with the IQ comment.

Biden stuttered as a boy and as a young man. I'm not sure how he got over it. He mentioned this on some talk show about two years back. I'm not sure why people stutter. Is there a medical reason? Is it just nervousness?

"...and it's the ironic twist that in the wake of Ronald Reagan that the only one thing he knew how to do was the one thing that is now being... the currency of which is in fact now being devalued so much."

The one thing, eh, Senator?

The Soviet Union folded its tent how many months after that speech was given?

Inflation was what in 88? Unemployment? Marginal tax rates on middle income earners?

What were those figures in say... 1980?

If the Democrats could ever enter into a policy discussion that wasn't preemptively and totally crushed by Teh Political Narrative they religiously perpetuate maybe they might be taken a little more seriously, more frequently, during national elections.

Empty suit and windy coot. I believe Obama's campaign had done a crap job of vetting Biden and is actively lobbying their best friends in the media to do yeoman heavy lifting.

And lauding Biden's "foreign policy credentials" might make an impact in Boston or Berkeley, but out here in the great unwashed middle we've always thought he always picked the wrong side when given the opportunity. Just like his party does.

Laugh if you want to, but I never realized until now that C-SPAN was an acronym. Maybe I was confused by the placement of the hyphen, but I always thought the C stood for Congress, and the network was touting the fact that its broadcasts spanned an entire session. Even the capital letters didn't clue me in, as I always figured they just fancied themselves among the Big Boys of Broadcasting, even as a fledgling network.

A commenter doubts that Obama would have seen this video back in 1987. Did people sit around watching C-SPAN back then?

Well, since I am that commenter, I have to respond. While it is certainly possible that Obama saw this video back in the eighties, and we will never really know one way or another unless he says he did, let's remember that this was an obscure video clip. Even C-Span junkies (assuming Obama was one back then) miss political clips, and this was also long before the days of online video, where you could be exposed to lots of video clips you would have otherwise missed if you weren't in front of the TV at the right moment.

Is it possible Obama saw the clip back in the day? Sure. Is it likely he did, given that this wasn't a high-rotation clip? No.

In fact, yes, this is why I started watching C-SPAN -- I had read a newspaper article about the trend of C-SPAN "political" junkies, who watched the channel maniacally, and never missed a House vote. This was around 1991, though.

One lady interviewed knew one obscure politician covered nationally, and surprised her friends with insight into his record.

-- Remember, this is the days before the internet, where 90% of US citizens got their political information through the local and nightly news. The other 10% might hunt around for the NYT, and other papers. --

Similarly, when I was a kid, Margaret Thatcher allowed cameras to broadcast from the House of Commons, for the first time ever. It was a BIG DEAL.

Coming on the heels of "Yes, Minister", IMHO the best "Britcom" ever produced, which put politics on the map for the common person, people tuned in by the thousands.

We even had a flurry of "Parliamentary Rules" books published, which loads of people bought in order to understand the stickier points of parliamentary debate. I still have mine.

I'm wondering if there has ever been a political sitcom or similar on US television that might've done the same for C-SPAN in the '80s?

Who knows. Maybe Obama watched that too.

P.S.: "The West Wing" (aka The Left Wing) doesn't count. That was post-Bush blues in the new century.

He's not like Biden. Biden is a knowable, garden variety kind of pol. Obama was an activist in the dirtiest political city in America. You have to know a lot of people to get ahead. It's inescapable. And it seems he didn't escape.

And then there's the Clinton Machine. If he loses in 2008, she will successfully make a case against him in 2012.

She'll say something like:

It's the equivalent of FDR having lost in 1932 to Herbert Hoover. There is NO WAY a Democratic nominee could lose the 2008 Presidential campaign. If he does, it's because the Democrats royally messed up their choice.

Ah, back to 1987! Well, I can't wait for your extended analysis of McCain calling his wife a harlot and a cunt in 1992. You could do such a good job with that--if it had been said by Obama. But of course, under faux neutrality, we'll never hear anything about that or the wealth of other examples of McCain's intemperateness.

victoria--thanks for the link.I love you and want to make you my love slave--that said, the versailles some 50 years ago was a hobby shop--I used to go there when I was a kid. down the street from the trail theater on douglas and the trail==right across the street from the douglas apartments which was the entrance to coral gables--I love your miami background--it restores lots of old and very nice memories--please keep it up

I was struck by the points of similarity between Biden and Wright. They both speak with certainty and bluster about unknowable things. They may have a damaged compass but they steer with certainty. I think Obama is looking more for certainty than for truth.

I keep seeing people saying this and am really struggling to see what the mean.

It's easy.

Bush didn't go for a regionally important candidate, since Wyoming's 3 little electoral votes didn't make much of a difference in a solidly Republican State anyway.

Same with Delaware, on the Democratic side.

Bush went with a man who shored up his conservative credentials, since he was running as "compassionate conservative" who had worked in a bipartisan manner as Gov of Texas, thus making his more conservative "base" nervous.

Obama went with a man who shores up the traditional lunchbucket vote, since he's seen as an elitist who eats arugulat at Whole Foods.

Regionally, Cheney helped in the South, and Biden is intended to secure the vital Pennsylvania/Ohio corridor. Even Massachussetts was looking dicey, and might yet be in play with Romney.

Then, there's the foreign policy experience. Cheney was a two-fer help there, since he had also been in the private sector, and was seen as pro-business, but he also offered DoD experience, as well.

Remember that Bush was a 2-term Governor, who had never travelled to Europe until he was President (he had to Latin America and China, frequently). He was preternaturally AMERICAN. Cheney no less, but he was more well-rounded and older.

The younger Obama is, in his own words, 'exotic'. An older Biden is an Irish-Catholic who brings much needed Americanness to the ticket.

Now, let's focus on McCain.

If he chooses Jindal, the analogy will be Bush 41 selecting Dan Quayle.

And yes, spare me the "intelligence" protestations, about potatoe, etc. That's not why it's a good analogy.

oh yeah--at that time calle ocho didnt exist and it was called the trail: from tamiami trail--went to school at auberndale elementary then citrus grove jr hi and on to miami high--wonderful place to grow up

Remember, Biden was running against those "heartless technocrats." He was trying to use this polite (and obviously disdainful) heckler's question as an opportunity to dis Gary Hart and Dick Gephart, not to impress the young Barack Obamas who might have been watching. He's a man of many flaws, Slow Joe, but at least he's neither heartless nor a technocrat. His comment certainly seems prescient when one recalls (if one's old enough) that the eventual nominee, Michael Dukakis, was thought by some to have lost the election when he gave a clinical and dispassionate answer to a presidential debate question about whether he'd reconsider his opposition to the death penalty if it were his wife who'd been the victim.

I do agree with Prof. A that Obama might well be the kind of wonk who watched a lot of C-SPAN back in 1987, but I find it inconceivable that he could have found Biden an inspiring figure, then or now.

"And this party better understand full well that it's about time that we change our attitude and we begin to change the attitudes of Americans about what their responsibilities are to the poor, about what their responsibilities are to other people, and about what our responsibility in the world is, and that requires changing attitudes."

This is what Obama really means by "change"! The same old punitive liberalism wrapped up in a shiny new package.

victoria--thanks for the link.I love you and want to make you my love slave--that said, the versailles some 50 years ago was a hobby shop--I used to go there when I was a kid. down the street from the trail theater on douglas and the trail==right across the street from the douglas apartments which was the entrance to coral gables--I love your miami background--it restores lots of old and very nice memories--please keep it up

And

oh yeah--at that time calle ocho didnt exist and it was called the trail: from tamiami trail--went to school at auberndale elementary then citrus grove jr hi and on to miami high--wonderful place to grow up

Wow, I'm totally digging these facts, Roger! I didn't know that one about "The Trail" and the hobby shop.

BTW, that theatre is still there but not operating even as a venue for a Cuban variety group (the famous Tower Theatre IS operating though. I ate in a seafood restaurant yards away from it, on Friday!).

If you're interested, I am going to start a series on Miami diners (the few that still remain) including the most famous extanct one from 1938, at Allen's Pharmacy.

somefeller: "Well, since I am that commenter, I have to respond. While it is certainly possible that Obama saw this video back in the eighties, and we will never really know one way or another unless he says he did, let's remember that this was an obscure video clip. Even C-Span junkies (assuming Obama was one back then) miss political clips, and this was also long before the days of online video, where you could be exposed to lots of video clips you would have otherwise missed if you weren't in front of the TV at the right moment.

"Is it possible Obama saw the clip back in the day? Sure. Is it likely he did, given that this wasn't a high-rotation clip? No."

Oratory puts me off. Puts me right off. Like now! Bang. Mute for you. You put on the oratory voice, I put on the mute. It's a Pavlovian response. No wait, faster than that, it's autonomic.

The thing about Reagan's oratory, or however the hell you spell his name, is that his oratory resonated with what a good portion of the electorate felt within their hearts and knew within their minds. He made sense. Obama appeals to emotion so his mad oratory skillz appeal to a reduced portion, that part of the electorate susceptible to emotional appeals. Not me, he's already on mute.

[Low flying helicopters again, in the direction of Pepsi Center. Pepsi. Ha ha ha. That suddenly struck me as funny. Quite the prolonged firework display last night. It was like tens of thousands of Democrats all orgasming at once.]

* Grabs edges of suit jacket*

"Let me be perfectly clear ..."

* Looks out over adoring crowd *

"... As I've said many times, This country is looking for change, and our combined IQs, although according to Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Adult, are one standard deviation below average, but what do those discredited metrics know (?), is still higher than yours by itself, together we can provide the leadership and change America is looking for.

Yesterday I heard Martha Stewart say she's voting for Obama because it's time for a change. Duh! She dropped a notch in respect for that inane platitude.

Damn. Helicopters. The sky is lousy with them. There must be every helicopter in Denver airborne at once. My pictures aren't coming out very good, they look like tiny dragonflies against azure blue. Mi lente del telefoto chupa la iguana muy grande.

OT and sorry: Victoria-- I have a great bunch of old pics of Miami in the 1950s--one of my high school buds sent them--go to my profile and email me, and I will forward them to you--they are priceless Miami circa 1950s--

"t's demographics-if one group of people are voting for you by over 90% and they are more heavily weighted in the Democratic party-

That's impossible to overcome-and Ayers won't matter for a hill of beans.

Obama could be the presumptive nominee for beyond 2012."

So, if I understand you correctly, black folks are going to vote for Obama as far into the future as he cares to run, regardless of his the level of success he may achieve with the electorate at large?

Seems kind of simple. Not saying your wrong. Far from it, actually.

But I still wouldn't bring that up in conversation at the NAACP tea luncheon, if I were you.

I don't think the Democrats will be a presidential threat for the next decade. It's not all Obama's fault; if Hillary was semi-competent we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

"So, if I understand you correctly, black folks are going to vote for Obama as far into the future as he cares to run, regardless of his the level of success he may achieve with the electorate at large?"

Probably true. And it will have one very very positive effect-- the complete marginalization of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and those like them, so long as Obama continues to keep Wright under the bus.

And if we are really lucky, then blacks adopting the post-racial mantle, perhaps more sincerely or authentically than Obama, will begin to dominate the Democratic party.

Because it wasn't a clip that was shown over and over on mainstream television at that time or later. While I was a teenager in 1987, I was a fairly politically aware one, and come from a politically active family, which discussed these sorts of things around the dinner table. I can easily remember all kinds of clips from that era, from Gary Hart telling the press to follow him around (oops!) to Michael Dukakis's bloodless answer to the question about someone raping and murdering his wife, as well when Biden flamed out because of the Kinnock quote scandal.

This one doesn't register in my memory, and while that isn't dispositive, the fact there was a NY Times article about the incident doesn't mean it was one that everyone knew about, either. Heck, let's put it to a test. Has anyone else posting here seen this clip before Biden became a top contender for Obama's VP nod? Be honest now. I suspect not.

Obama's 90%+ support among blacks is interesting. It didn't seem to be that way at the start. It was after Oprah blessed him for the South Carolina primary. It's not just Democrats, either. Colin Powell may be an Obama supporter. Condi Rice too. I heard in an interview JC Watts saying he may back Obama. There's something there, and whatever it is, support for Obama connects across the board. I'd say even if he loses in November he'll be continue to be a major a force to contend with down the road. And if his actual competency and skillsets ever catch up with the rest of his schtick? Look out.

As for the video, I agree with somefeller. Video wasn't ubiquitous in those days. It was catch as catch can, then it went away. Especially C-Span. I'd say it was far more likely that Obama tuned into who Biden was and became a Biden admirer during the Clarence Thomas hearing, which was televised on network TV and was very widely viewed. As a brand new law school grad and given the subject matter, it's a safe bet that Obama watched nonstop. Biden was chair of the judiciary committee and it was all his show to preside over.

While we're at it, a fun angle to explore in regards to HIS background is his relationship with the Du Pont family. It's been thirty five years or so but I once painted motel rooms with a guy from Delaware when I was a high school student in the Pocono Mountains (NE Pennsylvania). We had nothing else to do, so I listened to him talk about his life (he was 60, I was about 16), and he talked A LOT about the Du Pont family insane asylum that he had worked at for decades. He said the Du Ponts often intermarried and therefore had lots of loons, and they had a whole insane asylum just for them!

How true is this?

I'm too lazy to research it before posting. I think I'll post and then go and look around and see what I can find, meanwhile when I come back maybe someone will be ahead of me.

What is Biden's relationship to the DuPont's?

I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but came across this webpage claiming that the Du Ponts are Satanists because all Satanists intermarry. That's funny, but nuts, I think. At any rate, that's one theory I've never heard. I thought I had heard all of them.

But he wrote this part, claiming that all governors of Delaware had to be given the ok by the Du Ponts. This will probably come up soon in some book by Jerome Corsi or someone else, so I thought I would be ahead of the 8-ball for once.

At any rate, is the state of Delaware totally controlled by the Du Pont family, or mostly controlled by them? Who are they?

"One detail, that I didn’t mention in the original story on the duPonts was that one of the more recent Governors of Delaware C. Douglas Buck was married to Alice H. duPont. I also left out a great deal of the inside story on the politicking that has gone on in Delaware this century. It is so detailed with so many names that I didn’t want to confuse people with it. Anyway, the bottom line is that behind the scenes, all of the Governors since the 1920s have been approved by the duPonts. I debated whether to include the du Ponts genealogy. I had it, so I decided to give it, on the chance someone might use it. The genealogy shows several things, a. that the duPonts like the Astors repeatedly used the same names over and over, b, that the duPonts like the Rothschilds had a lot of first cousin marriages (marriages between a du Pont and a du Pont are given asterisks-however some of the marriages between people with different last names are also between first cousins and other relation. If it looks like I’ve gone to a great deal of trouble for nothing-I can understand what you’re saying. We certainly don’t need to know every du Pont. But just like in a laboratory one deals with many exact small details in numerous experiments to discover a principle-that is what I am doing here. I am trying to break ground so that people will understand more about how the elite think, etc. I had hoped that I might also be able to track which branches are with the Illuminati and which may have bailed out."

Enigmaticore (On blacks voting 90-10 for blacks over candidates of other races) - And if we are really lucky, then blacks adopting the post-racial mantle, perhaps more sincerely or authentically than Obama, will begin to dominate the Democratic party.

Hard to claim that as "post-racial", unless you are saying that it is blacks voting almost exclusively by race and skin color means they have gone "post-racial" by only voting for blacks claiming to be post-racial.

What "post-racial" appears to mean for Democrats is that hispanics, whites, asians will soon learn that they always lose to blacks if they vote based on the person and split their votes between races. Because blacks win by maintaining racial and tribal solidarity to the black pol wanting election, by their 90-10 vote tilt..And if they want to get city elections, patronage where blacks are 20-50% of voters, or in Dem Presidential Primaries where blacks are 33% of the vote - they too must also learn to vote for "their people" to best serve their power and self-interest - against the blacks.

That doesn't sound too post-racial. Even if the Dems left in cities and future presidential contests get the eventual black winner who claims to be post-racial, unless other groups also vote by skin color for a post-racial candidate of their own kind.

And key in this is how the artificial race "hispanic" - now well ahead of blacks in demographics - and the large, powerful Asian minority, see themselves. Can they work and prosper under black politicians running the show, or do they need to set up their own racial solidarity politics or form coalitions with each other and whites against the monolithic black vote - in order to get their share of power and city patronage jobs?

As an ex-Clerk of a polling station, I can tell you they are -- if they apply for voting rights re-instatement.

Tangential anecdote:

Every election day, this same black chap (a very polite guy, wearing a mechanic's uni) came to vote, and every time I had to tell him, "you're not on the register. Did you apply for re-instatement?" "Ma'am, that happened years ago. I was a kid. I'm a changed man now. Why aren't you letting me vote?". He looked genuinely aggrieved, and I couldn't make him understand it wasn't my doing.

But I had this conversation 5 times with the guy.

The 2004 Presidential Election was absolute murder for convicted felons wanting to vote (no pun intended). I was accused of every form of racism you can imagine, because I wasn't letting them vote.

So, it all depends if Stewart's voting rights have been re-instated.

What gets me is that famous people, of any political party feel they have to go on record, and tell the rest of the world how to vote.

"Hard to claim that as "post-racial", unless you are saying that it is blacks voting almost exclusively by race and skin color means they have gone "post-racial" by only voting for blacks claiming to be post-racial."

I didn't claim that would be post-racial.

I said that, if we are lucky, in such a case the ones nominated would be more authentically post-racial in their aspirations than Obama.

Careful. Obama is a Marxist, not just an empty suit. As such, he should be opposed by every method available in a lawful society.

Fen, you know I often agree with you, but not this time, my friend.

Marxism is only truly dangerous in repressive societies.

In a free society, like we have in the West, from France to Italy to the US, Marxism doesn't make a dent. You know why? Because the implementation of its precepts are EVIL, and the results are DUMB. People see that.

Marxists tear out their hair trying to find ways to figure out why they can't make poor people see "the light". They use their flawlessly argued logic, which they are carefully taught, and still nothing.

Now, it doesn't mean we can't be on guard for Marxist creep, including creeps who are Marxists (heh).

But that's not Obama. He's not even close to being a real Marxist, though like every academic, he hasn't escaped the tentacles of political indoctrination at University.

You can say he just hides it better, than, say, Ward Churchill -- and that could be true.

But a Leftist doesn't a Marxist make.

No. Obama just has emotional issues, unresolved as they are because both parents died before making peace with them in his later adulthood. Bush had many of these issues, but he's been blessed with two parents still living in their 80s, who loved him unconditionally.

Interesting comment, with which I think I disagree. But I'd like to hear more before I say that I do.

A liberal doesn't a leftist make and a liberal doesn't a Marxist make are two comments I would agree with right away. But can you give me an example of a leftist that isn't a Marxist, or tell me what a leftist that isn't a Marxist would believe?

A liberal doesn't a leftist make and a liberal doesn't a Marxist make are two comments I would agree with right away. But can you give me an example of a leftist that isn't a Marxist, or tell me what a leftist that isn't a Marxist would believe?

I know where you are getting at, but first, let me say that I was using "Leftist" as a general rubric for all those left of centre, as we know that to mean in the post-modern age. This includes liberals, although not classic liberals, obviously.

Now, as to your question.

I just mentioned Louis Althusser in another thread. We can still use him in this thread, to highlight what I mean.

An excerpt from his Wiki entry about this:

Althusser conceives of society as an interconnected collection of these wholes – economic practice, ideological practice and politico-legal practice – which together make up one complex whole (social formation). In his view all levels and practices are dependent on each other.

For example, amongst the relations of production of capitalist societies are the buying and selling of labour power by capitalists and workers. These relations are part of economic practice, but can only exist within the context of a legal system which establishes individual agents as buyers and sellers; furthermore, the arrangement must be maintained by political and ideological means.

From this it can be seen that aspects of economic practice depend on the superstructure and vice versa. For him this was the moment of reproduction and constituted the important role of the superstructure.

Marxists concentrate on the superstructures, rather than individuality of people and nations.

That's why post-feudal societies are much more likely to be left of centre, because they understand their history through the superstructure, through narrow governance, through divisive social classes, rather than the USA has been, because this is not a post-feudal society.

Or foundations are populist, and therefore Leftist in expression.

Americans speak the language of the common man.

What is the point of Sacco and Vanzetti, if you have FDR and John Lewis as examples of successful, non-anarchic native leftism?

Tell me if I lost you with my rhetoric. :)

I can talk about this all day, but I'm off to the gym. Yes, even on Sunday!

He is Marxist in philosophy and he is an emotional authoritarian. He wants to redistribute wealth. He wants a global tax on US taxpayers. He wants mandatory public service. He wants us to speak Spanish. He thinks that we are ignorant and not good enough.

He surrogate has said:

"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism ... that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

My suspicion comes from Obama's political alliance with Ayers re public education, and Ayers's remarks to Chavez that the US public education system is the best tool to bring Change![tm] called Marxism.

"Let me say that I was using "Leftist" as a general rubric for all those left of centre, as we know that to mean in the post-modern age. This includes liberals, although not classic liberals, obviously.

Now, as to your question."

No need to go further than that (although I'll consider what you wrote after it) because the part I quoted answered everything-- you were using 'leftist' the way I use liberal.

To me, leftist has a much more severe and negative connotation than left-of-center. A leftist, in my vernacular, is more akin to a radical of the left.

American Democrats are left of center, but not leftist (IMO). Ayers is leftist. Where Obama fits, I am not sure (and my lack of certainty is a big reason, along with my sense of his absolute phoniness, why I will not vote his way).

"All Leftist ideologues around the world share anti-Americanism in common"

Now we are getting somewhere, as our definitions are starting to converge.

I agree that leftism embodies anti-Americanism. Why? Because America most successfully embodies capitalism.

I think that still remains as a useful dividing line between liberals and leftists. The former is not necessarily Marxist and is not necessarily anti-American. The latter will be both, because America is the driving force of capitalism in the world.

Certainly Ayers' politics remain unapologetically authoritarian. He recently traveled to Venezuela - only the most recent of several such trips - and delivered a speech in front of Hugo Chavez in which he spoke of education as the "motor force of revolution" and his interest in "overcom[ing] the failings of capitalist education" and said he thought Chavez was creating "something truly new and deeply humane." He closed his speech by mouthing typical slogans of the authoritarian left: "Viva Mission Sucre! Viva Presidente Chavez! Viva La Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta La Victoria Siempre!"

Liberals believe in individual freedom; most of the people calling themselves "liberals" do not.

Echo. I've been lurking on TalkLeft last week. Even known loyalists are "reminded" by admins to avoid certain criticisms of Dem candidates, to use Obama instead of BHO, to retract an unguarded statement or be banned from posting.

Of all the blogs in all the world, you'd think the one where you could freely express your thoughts would be a liberal one. But that word doesn't mean what it used to.